“Hate” May Be Too Strong

Little Pasture* says: “Stacey Campfield recently spoke before a group Aunt B. says is a hate group.”

I just want to clarify.  I’ve been giving this some thought and I think that maybe white supremacy is not quite the right phrase in the case of these anti-immigration groups.  I don’t know.  LP’s got me thinking of it because I’m kind of annoyed by his typification of my description of these groups as “hate” groups.  I don’t think TN-RIP or T-FIRE are hate groups.  They’re not the Klan or the Skinheads.

And the more I think about it, the more I think that they’re not exactly white supremacists either.  I mean, yes, clearly it’s obvious to outsiders that they think that white Americans are better than non-white non-Americans–hence the supremacy.

But clearly, as well, they don’t understand what they’re doing as advancing white supremacy.  And so I’m not sure that it’s entirely useful

I mean, I think there’s a spectrum of ideas here and that what they want to do is protect white hegemony.

And that really annoys me because hegemony is one of my least favorite words ever and here they’ve gone and given me a reasonable and practical reason to regularly use it.

Damn you, white hegemonists, damn you!

*For you new readers, I try not to use Little Pasture’s immigrant name out of respect for his paleoconservative nonsense.

10 thoughts on ““Hate” May Be Too Strong

  1. Pingback: Volunteer Voters » In Search Of White Nationalism

  2. I don’t know. If I act like a bigot and talk like a bigot and people tell me I’m acting and talking like a bigot and I say “But I’m not!”…does that make what I’m saying and doing not bigoted? Or am I just being thick-witted or disingenuous or a little of both?

    Those who espouse white supremacist ideas build elaborate rationales designed to dissociate themselves from the knowledge of the harm they are doing. It’s only well into the hate journey that they move from “not knowing” to “not caring” because they’ve convinced themselves that the groups they target are more like a contagion than a people and they see themselves as bringing hard medicine to a sick society.

  3. Ugh. Yeah, I know. I just… here’s the thing. I want to call it as I see it–and regardless of what you call it, white supremacy, white nationalism, white hegemony–it’s racism. What they’re doing, how they’re framing their objections; it’s racist.

    But I also want to describe it in such a way that they get it, not all of them, obviously, but the ones who feel uneasy about it.

    Because, one way or another, the immigration problem will be resolved, eventually. But, if we don’t talk about it and try to work it out, when is the fact that we white people want to impose our will and our ways on a whole country that’s not only ours going to be resolved?

  4. And here I was going to say something about them being in recruitment mode. You know, find somebody who can provide you a relatively big online forum…then come on like you’re all misunderstood and not really a racist asshat at all but a patriot and a defender of property (because don’t we all like our nation and our stuff?) and make absolutely sure that your comments link back to your website. Focus on the dangers rather than the opportunities. Suggest that cultural change in one’s country is not something that has always happened, but that it is new, abnormal, undesirable, and potentially unsurvivable. Appeal to a ill-defined “westernness” or “traditionalism” that we all need to get back to as we stand shoulder to shoulder against invaders. Use the language of contagion. Revise history when it is convenient (hey, we’re like American Indians defending their lands…we’re like Jews in Warsaw…surely you don’t think a skinhead would identify with Indians and Jews, right?), recalling that most of your targets (young white men 16-30) really don’t have that much historical background and lack context to analyze the half-truth you’re serving up. As long as you sound smart, calm, and reasonable, that’s half the battle. Repeatedly suggest that you’re just operating from motivations of national pride.

    Hell, these guys have been putting on a textbook demo of how it’s done.

  5. Shit. Does this mean I’m going to have to go look at his website?

    I’m just now getting geared up to go see how I’ve hurt Wes Comer’s fee-fees. I don’t know if I can do two sites of ridiculousness on the same evening.

  6. As I noted, he’s a Brit who hasn’t really got a dog in this particular fight. But don’t you love his little tag?

    I’m no blogger, so most posts will likely be other people’s writings about England and the English, or promoting nationalism and human bio- and cultural-diversity

    How can one honestly advance the notion of “human-bio and cultural diversity” while simultaneously “promoting nationalism?” The promotion of the latter by definition discourages the former under his dictum.


  7. Editor, that’s classic British imperialism. They liked a lot of “ethnic” nations to rule over — the world as their curiousity cabinet, with dark people over there to be looked at, ruled over, and their properties expropriated and white folks over here wearing Indian silk shawls and drinking tea while bemoaning the white man’s burden. Gladthereafter would have been very happy in 19th century England, since his ideas about the English being an “island race” whose culture and history uniquely fitted it for ruling over the less civilized darker races hit the height of intellectual fashionability right after the Napoleonic War. Really, though, you’d think a group of folks who have seen what the end result of ethnic nationalism looks like wouldn’t be so hot on keeping that particular bad idea alive.

    But but but…says the guys from groups like T-Fire and others, we’re just for enforcing the LAW. And passing new LAWS. Surely you can’t be opposed to the rule of LAW. I would remind you that genocides like the murder of half a million Rwandans, the systematic killing of Bosnians, and yes (though this may put me in violation of Godwin’s Law), even the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust were legal under the laws of the nations that carried out the slaughter in the name of ethnic nationalism and the defense of their nation’s cultural purity and traditional values.
    Laws are not magic. They don’t confer moral worth and they aren’t immune from critique just because some words make a statute book. Demanding immigration laws premised on and justified by ethnic nationalism is a racist act. You don’t have to be a historian to see where this one can go. You just have to have a little common sense.

  8. Yup, Bridgett. It’s a classic case of Nation Envy if you ask me (of course, nobody has asked me, but what the hey).

    I live on the (probably misguided and Pollyannish) idea that what is supposed to be cool about America is that we bring in all these other cultures, and in doing so meld their foods, dress, language, and customs into what is currently in existence. We’re a nation of hybrids, of mutts. It’s why we have taco Tuesday and Friday fish fry (this may only be a northern east coast thing, but it only proves my point). It’s why we celebrate St. Patrick’s day, Oktoberfest, and, more recently, Cinqo de Mayo, even though none of these “holidays” has anything to do with “American” history.

    The notion of “nationalism”–that there is a single, agreed upon notion of homogeneous history and prevailing aspiration which is defined by a single “culture”–by necessity of our lofty ideals and our melting pot citizenry (legal or no), can’t have a solid and unbending definition.

    We cannot (with a straight face) preserve some untenable stance that there is one definable and rigid “American culture” that must be maintained at all cost. Our peoples are too diverse in background. Most all of us incorporate the customs we learned from our ancestors while simultaneously incorporating and/or enjoying the benefits of cultures other than our own (that’s a little individual “our own,” not a big national “our own”).

    Honestly, the English language (such as it is) would be completely different had it not been for a little fight back in 1066 between the Saxons and the Normans (I’m imagining a Woot from Aunt B.). So when we talk about preserving something like the English language, I just have to laugh. Which version of the English language? Old English? Anglo-Norman/Old French/Middle English? Modern day American English? Which English language!? Should I stop using words like Internet or Email because they weren’t extant in the venerated era of the 1950s? Should I stop saying quesadilla and start saying “fried flat bread filled with melted cheese” so as not to allow the “infection” of Hispanic culture into my speech? I mean, I grew up saying ski hat while you all down south called it a toboggan. To me, a toboggan is what I flew down snow banks on when I was a kid. So whose version of English are we preserving and whose version is right or more right or most right?

    How far do we take this misguided notion of American Nationalism before we see it for the dangerous farce that it is?

Comments are closed.